Science - its future and solving misinformation problems

[inertia]

"It’s not so much the information that you’re communicating, it’s, 'Do I trust you as a person?' That can really affect whether or not I’m going to believe what you say," said Nicole Kelp, a professor in the microbiology, immunology and pathology department. "Scientists can have the right information and not seem trustworthy and people don’t believe them."

Reference: CSU

____

 

[inertia]

"It’s not so much the information that you’re communicating, it’s, 'Do I trust you as a person?' That can really affect whether or not I’m going to believe what you say," said Nicole Kelp, a professor in the microbiology, immunology and pathology department. "Scientists can have the right information and not seem trustworthy and people don’t believe them."

Reference: CSU

Reference: CSU

___

 

[Gus Bovona]

"It’s not so much the information that you’re communicating, it’s, 'Do I trust you as a person?' That can really affect whether or not I’m going to believe what you say," said Nicole Kelp, a professor in the microbiology, immunology and pathology department. "Scientists can have the right information and not seem trustworthy and people don’t believe them."

Reference: CSU

____

I think that, more fundamentally, it's about trusting the institution, not the person who speaks for the institution. Science can be considered an institution in this sense, and its institutional values (falsification, critically examining claims, ability to correct errors, etc.) are the basis for the trust in the institution.

This comes from the bandwagon I am currently riding, which is "The Constitution of Knowledge" by Jonathan Rausch, which I highly recommend.

 

[Torin]

@Gus Bovona

Does this person give reasons to trust the institution? If his argument is that everyone should assume there is no institutional bias anywhere in science then that is shockingly naive. I haven't read the book though.

 

[The Pixie]

Does this person give reasons to trust the institution? If his argument is that everyone should assume there is no institutional bias anywhere in science then that is shockingly naive. I haven't read the book though.

Can you give an example of something that is accepted as mainstream science because of "institutional bias"?

I appreciate individual scientists have biases that will certainly influence their research, but that is not mainstream science. Every time a scientist publishes, he put his reputation on the line. If the paper turns out to be fundamentally flawed, that can ruin his career. Scientist will tend, therefore, to only make claims they can support, and will be careful to qualify them appropriately. That is probably less true in companies, but that is why a scientist should declare their personal interests when publishing a paper.

It is not perfect, but it is probably the best we have,

I would suggest the reason people do not trust scientists is that scientists tell them truths they do not want to hear - whether that is climate change, or vaccination or evolution. Plus, there are a lot of people out their who have a vested interest in trashing science to advance their own interests. The likes of Ken Ham and Stephen Meyer makes a lot of money from trash-talking evolution.

 

[Gus Bovona]

@Gus Bovona

Does this person give reasons to trust the institution?

If you mean the author, Rausch, yes.

If his argument is that everyone should assume there is no institutional bias anywhere in science then that is shockingly naive.

That is not his argument. His argument includes support for those institutions that have self-correction as an institutional value.

I haven't read the book though.

I highly recommended it (although I’m not finished yet).

 

[inertia]

I think that, more fundamentally, it's about trusting the institution, not the person who speaks for the institution. Science can be considered an institution in this sense, and its institutional values (falsification, critically examining claims, ability to correct errors, etc.) are the basis for the trust in the institution.

This comes from the bandwagon I am currently riding, which is "The Constitution of Knowledge" by Jonathan Rausch, which I highly recommend.

The ability to adapt to new information and modify or eliminate models certainly bolsters trust.

Thanks for the recommendation.

inertia

___